ᐅ Setting Up a Time-Lapse Camera for House Construction

And many of those who criticize trash TV behave antisocially themselves. Self-interest is given too much importance, and laws are disregarded – stubbornness sometimes has a slight upper hand.

@Bauexperte: For professional photographers and others who, due to their occupation, should be familiar with the laws since they work according to them every day, penalties are tightened in case of violations. That is why there is such meticulous compliance.

By assuming from the outset that the images created will not be used responsibly, I find any further discussion on this unnecessary.

I have tried to explain how the situation is when images are used purely for private purposes and, additionally, how it is regulated by laws in non-private contexts.
Since I cannot and do not want to provide legal advice, I ask everyone to use their common sense and, if that is not enough, to seek legal assistance.

Hello,

DaLinux schrieb:

By assuming from the start that created images are not handled responsibly, I see no need for further discussion on this.

I did not make such an assumption but rather presented ideas for discussion.

DaLinux schrieb:

I tried to explain how the situation is when images are used purely for private purposes and additionally how it is regulated by laws for non-private use.

I understand that, but multiple court rulings (mostly contradictory) argue against an exclusively black-and-white view ...

Regards, Bauexperte

I can explain how I handled it for myself:

• I informed the neighbors... they told me, "No problem at all, we and our friends are constantly taking photos of the work happening there anyway, and we find it fun..." I also mentioned that parts of the neighbor’s house might appear in the images, but I was clearly told that they have no issues with that and I shouldn’t worry about it.
• I sent an email to the site manager, asking them to forward it to the companies working there. I asked them to communicate my concerns accordingly (which I explained with sample videos) and offered contact options for anyone who does not want to be filmed here. It would be nearly impossible for me to speak to everyone individually. This solution is not ideal, but I try to involve everyone this way. A photographer friend, who often takes photos of public and private locations for a major newspaper, said that given the resolution at this distance and wide angle, it is unnecessary to ask the companies because it is not possible to clearly identify any person.
• Taking a shot from the street would mean attaching a camera to public trees, signs, etc. That would be relatively unprotected and almost certainly pose the next legal issue. Either I will install a pole at the end of the property to record from about 2 to 4 meters (6.5 to 13 feet) height, or I will use a tree, possibly with the neighbor’s permission, to make the recording.

I understand that one could still say this is not 100% legally correct. I strive to respect all rights and would recommend everyone to do the same!
Thank you very much for the discussion here, and since it got emotional: everyone has a different perspective based on their experiences. Sometimes it makes sense to look beyond one’s own viewpoint and try to see things through others’ eyes.
A comment about an IQ over 130 seems, in my opinion, like an indirect jab and can quickly add fuel to the fire.
The fact is, many people would take such footage without giving it a second thought — people simply have different mindsets. For my part, I try to protect myself in such cases, which is often not easy; you usually face rejection and realize that some rules exist for good reason. Still, I find the Street View discussion odd — after all, you can’t pixelate a house in real life from public vantage points for the whole world.

Finally, here is an example video from the bcc100 camera, so you can see the kind of result it produces and judge it better:
[MEDIA=YouTube]FiEE3b0_0QA[/MEDIA]

Just happened to me:

ECJ Ruling: Surveillance Camera for Property Protection & Public Street Areas

The EU directive on the protection of personal data applies to video recordings made by a surveillance camera installed by an individual at their single-family home and directed towards a public street area. However, the directive allows consideration of the legitimate interest of that person in protecting their property, health, and life, as well as that of their family.

Case Details

A family in the Czech Republic was repeatedly targeted by attacks from an unknown individual. The windows of their house were smashed multiple times. In response to these attacks, the homeowner installed a surveillance camera recording the entrance to the house, the public street area, and the entrance of the house opposite.

One night in October 2007, a window pane of his house was shot and broken with a slingshot. The surveillance camera footage handed over to the police allowed identification of two suspects, against whom criminal proceedings were initiated.

One of the suspects challenged the legality of processing the data recorded by the surveillance camera. The authority (in the Czech Republic) found that data protection regulations had indeed been violated and imposed a fine on the homeowner. The authority stated, among other things, that the suspect’s data had been recorded without his consent, although he was present in the public street area, i.e., the part of the street in front of the house.

Question to the Court

The Supreme Administrative Court of the Czech Republic asked the Court whether the recording made by the homeowner to protect his life, health, and property (i.e., recording personal data of persons who attacked his house from the public street area) constitutes data processing not covered by the directive because it was carried out by a natural person exclusively for personal or family activities.

ECJ Ruling (C-212/13)

In its ruling today, the Court first points out that the concept of personal data within the meaning of this directive refers to all information relating to an identified or identifiable natural person. A person is considered identifiable if they can be identified, directly or indirectly, by reference to one or more factors specific to their physical identity.

The image of a person recorded by a camera therefore falls under the concept of personal data, as it enables identification of the individual concerned.

Likewise, video surveillance involving the recording and storage of personal data falls within the scope of the directive, as it constitutes automated processing of such data.

Secondly, video surveillance that extends to public areas, thus targeting a space outside the private sphere of the data controller, cannot be regarded as an "exclusively personal or family activity."

Legitimate Interest for Data Processing

At the same time, the national court must consider that the directive’s provisions allow for recognition of the legitimate interest of the data controller in protecting their property, health, and life, as well as that of their family. In particular, first, personal data processing may take place without the consent of the data subject if it is necessary for the legitimate interests pursued by the data controller. Second, a person does not need to be informed about the processing if this is impossible or involves disproportionate effort. Third, member states may restrict the obligations and rights provided for in the directive where such restriction is necessary for the prevention, investigation, detection, or prosecution of criminal offenses or for the protection of the rights and freedoms of others.

Topics Index:

Directive 95/46/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 24 October 1995 on the protection of individuals with regard to the processing of personal data and on the free movement of such data (OJ L 281, p. 31).
Video camera, video surveillance

Court:

ECJ, Ruling of 11 December 2014 – C-212/13

Best regards, Bauexperte

Totally crazy, to put it mildly. I already read it yesterday as well.